Blackpill Women who have abortions are more evil than serial killers and mass shooters.

[sub8male]

A common argument used against serial killers and mass shooters is that they kill "innocent people". The fact they kill "innocent people" makes them terrible, where as murder of someone who committed a wrong against you, while still evil, is seen as somewhat understandable, such as if someone slept with your spouse for example.

However, most of the time, they don't kill people who are "innocent".

View: https://youtu.be/8vq_k0yqq88


It's further explained in this thread by @BlkPillPres

[Hard To Swallow Edition] There Is No Such Thing As An "Innocent" In Society [NOT EVEN CHILDREN]

A lot of people, even incels, are against mass murders based on the false perception of "innocents", I'm here to argue there's no such thing Aren't we all aware that pedophilia and rape is rampant in Hollywood? Most people living in areas with drug king pins know who is running the area yet do...

incels.is

Yes, this even includes young children, such as the ones Adam Lanza killed at Sandy Hook.

However, when a woman kills life in her womb, she is killing innocent life, because how can something that hasn't been born yet commit evil and not be innocent? Therefore, she is the one killing innocent life, not serial killers or mass shooters, and thus since killing innocent life is seen as the most evil thing, she is more evil than serial killers and mass shooters.

 

[BlackPilledOverdose]

foids who get abortions are all sluts and cunts.

 

[PeterTheSub5]

40-50 million abortions per year, most of them are healthy children. Pure[UWSL] evil[/UWSL]

 

[gimmedatrope999]

I wish I was aborted.

 

[Deleted member 39864]

Interesting perspective on this. They do kill the most innocent beings on earth. @Vitarius thoughts?

 

[BlkPillPres]

A common argument used against serial killers and mass shooters is that they kill "innocent people". The fact they kill "innocent people" makes them terrible, where as murder of someone who committed a wrong against you, while still evil, is seen as somewhat understandable, such as if someone slept with your spouse for example.

However, most of the time, they don't kill people who are "innocent".

View: https://youtu.be/8vq_k0yqq88


It's further explained in this thread by @BlkPillPres

[Hard To Swallow Edition] There Is No Such Thing As An "Innocent" In Society [NOT EVEN CHILDREN]

A lot of people, even incels, are against mass murders based on the false perception of "innocents", I'm here to argue there's no such thing Aren't we all aware that pedophilia and rape is rampant in Hollywood? Most people living in areas with drug king pins know who is running the area yet do...

incels.is

Yes, this even includes young children, such as the ones Adam Lanza killed at Sandy Hook.

However, when a woman kills life in her womb, she is killing innocent life, because how can something that hasn't been born yet commit evil and not be innocent? Therefore, she is the one killing innocent life, not serial killers or mass shooters, and thus since killing innocent life is seen as the most evil thing, she is more evil than serial killers and mass shooters.

Actually I would say it's no different because the child that was aborted has the potential to become a normie after being born, so it's the same thing. No life is innocent because all life has a propensity towards "evil".

 

[Deleted member 39864]

Actually I would say it's no different because the child that was aborted has the potential to become a normie after being born, so it's the same thing. No life is innocent because all life has a propensity towards "evil".

I thought guilt, in terms of evil, has to do with what you actually do, as opposed to what you potentially will do.

For example OP linked your other thread, and in there you claimed kids aren't innocent because they act in mean selfish ways but people give them more leniency because they are younger and supposedly don't know better, but really they do to a degree understand the difference between right and wrong to a degree.

 

[BlkPillPres]

but really they do to a degree understand the difference between right and wrong to a degree.

I don't think malicious intent is required to label something "evil".

What if it was just part of a tribes culture to hunt one person down every year, torture them to death and sacrifice their corpse to some God.

Is it now "not evil" because that tribe sees it as "good" and "holy".

I don't care about intent, I care about how something affects me.

If a drunk driver runs over one of your family members and kills them, you aren't going to care that they were drunk and it wasn't their intent to kill anyone. The end result is that said family member is still dead.

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

Guy's speaking facts. I am always worried about how I would be judged morally by other people, but I'll put my money on the table that those same people who get mad at you for ripping them off would do the same if they can get away with it.

We're all sinners. Does having desires that I want fulfilled make me worse than Hitler?

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

Actually I would say it's no different because the child that was aborted has the potential to become a normie after being born, so it's the same thing. No life is innocent because all life has a propensity towards "evil".

What is "evil"? How do you define "evil"?

Is it "evil" when someone acts in their own interest, someone who takes advantage and benefits at the expense of others? Someone that you use as a means to and end? To get something out of them out of deceit? To be callous and stingy?

Or is "evil" the pursuit of pleasure? The pursuit of more food, more sex, more money, beyond what one really needs for the pure sake of pleasure and to the point of becoming excessive and unhealthy?

Or is "evil" the act of causing harm on another living soul? Either to get an edge over them or simply out of sheer sadism?

Or is it[UWSL] "evil" to simply have desires? Including earthly and carnal ones? Wanting what someone else has and doing whatever means of taking it away from them for your own use even if it means depriving someone else of that thing, or of the chance or opportunity of acquiring that thing if his life depended on it? Does your own happiness and pleasure have a higher priority over others?[/UWSL]

[UWSL]Or is being "evil" is to violate social norms and personal rights? If I make someone angry am I morally inferior than the angry person and thus deserving of his anger? Is anger the defend justice? And shame its sentence?[/UWSL]

[UWSL]If a man ever commit "evil" acts in his life, does that make him an intrinsically "evil" person? If so, does that "evil" person deserving of ridicule, prejudice, persecution, humiliation and shame for being in violation of what is just and good? Does the "evil" man deserve anger and harm directed at him, even if the attacker isn't a victim of his "evil" act? Do two "wrongs" ever make a "right"? Can a man ever "right" his "wrong"?[/UWSL]

 

[crvkek]

they did the kid a favor. life is terrible

 

[Deleted member 39864]

If a drunk driver runs over one of your family members and kills them, you aren't going to care that they were drunk and it wasn't their intent to kill anyone. The end result is that said family member is still dead.

I think in this case the fact that they drove drunk was them engaging in reckless behavior that risked harm to others, so they still should have known not to drive drunk.

I do agree it's not just about intent though, consequences of an action are more important.

 

[BlkPillPres]

What is "evil"? How do you define "evil"?

Is it "evil" when someone acts in their own interest, someone who takes advantage and benefits at the expense of others? Someone that you use as a means to and end? To get something out of them out of deceit? To be callous and stingy?

Or is "evil" the pursuit of pleasure? The pursuit of more food, more sex, more money, beyond what one really needs for the pure sake of pleasure and to the point of becoming excessive and unhealthy?

Or is "evil" the act of causing harm on another living soul? Either to get an edge over them or simply out of sheer sadism?

Or is it[UWSL] "evil" to simply have desires? Including earthly and carnal ones? Wanting what someone else has and doing whatever means of taking it away from them for your own use even if it means depriving someone else of that thing, or of the chance or opportunity of acquiring that thing if his life depended on it? Does your own happiness and pleasure have a higher priority over others?[/UWSL]

[UWSL]Or is being "evil" is to violate social norms and personal rights? If I make someone angry am I morally inferior than the angry person and thus deserving of his anger? Is anger the defend justice? And shame its sentence?[/UWSL]

[UWSL]If a man ever commit "evil" acts in his life, does that make him an intrinsically "evil" person? If so, does that "evil" person deserving of ridicule, prejudice, persecution, humiliation and shame for being in violation of what is just and good? Does the "evil" man deserve anger and harm directed at him, even if the attacker isn't a victim of his "evil" act? Do two "wrongs" ever make a "right"? Can a man ever "right" his "wrong"?[/UWSL]

There's no such thing as "evil", that's why I put it in quotes.

It's just a concept humans came up with to categorize acts that involve violence we frown upon.

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

There's no such thing as "evil", that's why I put it in quotes.

It's just a concept humans came up with to categorize acts that involve violence we frown upon.

So if someone did harm to you, and you get angry at that person because he has taken advantage of you and thus you must seek retribution for his actions, do you see that person as "evil" for his actions and you getting angry and fighting back as a way of delivering justice?

Let's say if someone stole a large amount of money from you, and you get to confront the thief who is unwilling to give you the money back or has spent it all away. Certainly the thief has harmed you for his own personal gain because by you losing your money you lose your options of what you can get in life not to mention that your money is your means of a livelihood (without money you can't buy food and you lose your house and become homeless, losing money and being robbed is a threat to your survival) and on top of the effort you put in to acquire that money that has now gone to waste to benefit another person. So you would get mad and harm the thief.

Is the thief therefore immoral for causing you harm and depriving you of what you earned from your own effort for his own selfish gain? Is theft slavery and a form of parasitism for having someone else benefit from what you worked for and depriving you from the fruits of your labor?

 

[Reclusemaxxer]

I don’t see a problem with abortion most babies being born are gonna grow up to be your everyday wageslaving getting up every morning to go waste 8 hours of their day then come home sleep rinse and repeat until they die is that really a life worth passing on even if their child becomes an NBA player or the next bill gates they’ll die one day anyways and it won’t matter

 

[Deleted member 39864]

I don’t see a problem with abortion most babies being born are gonna grow up to be your everyday wageslaving getting up every morning to go waste 8 hours of their day then come home sleep rinse and repeat until they die is that really a life worth passing on even if their child becomes an NBA player or the next bill gates they’ll die one day anyways and it won’t matter

by that logic women should be able to kill autistic babies since those babies will not be as successful as non autistic babies

 

[Reclusemaxxer]

by that logic women should be able to kill autistic babies since those babies will not be as successful as non autistic babies

I’m antinatalist not a eugenicist

 

[Deleted member 39864]

I’m antinatalist not a eugenicist

still though do you remember what happened when you were a baby? of course not. you might as well not have been born yet in a sense, since you can't remember anything from then. The whole purpose of antinatalism is that you think life in general is suffering and should be limited, so killing autistic babies, could be a way to achieve a similar goal as antinatalists have.

 

[Reclusemaxxer]

still though do you remember what happened when you were a baby? of course not. you might as well not have been born yet in a sense, since you can't remember anything from then. The whole purpose of antinatalism is that you think life in general is suffering and should be limited, so killing autistic babies, could be a way to achieve a similar goal as antinatalists have.

To me a baby is a baby doesn’t matter if it’s autistic or not

 

[BlkPillPres]

So if someone did harm to you, and you get angry at that person because he has taken advantage of you and thus you must seek retribution for his actions, do you see that person as "evil" for his actions and you getting angry and fighting back as a way of delivering justice?

No, I see it as me defending myself for the sake of my own self interest. Nobody who is against me is "evil", they are merely another competitor, another enemy.

Also, "justification" isn't needed on my part, in the same way that the person who harmed me didn't have any justification either. They just did what they wanted because they wanted to do it.

I don't care about "justification" either way because I'm a nihilist, I don't believe in morality. If someone makes themselves my enemy then I will have to be their enemy for the sake of my own survival and my own benefit.

Let's say if someone stole a large amount of money from you, and you get to confront the thief who is unwilling to give you the money back or has spent it all away. Certainly the thief has harmed you for his own personal gain because by you losing your money you lose your options of what you can get in life not to mention that your money is your means of a livelihood (without money you can't buy food and you lose your house and become homeless, losing money and being robbed is a threat to your survival) and on top of the effort you put in to acquire that money that has now gone to waste to benefit another person. So you would get mad and harm the thief.

Yes

Is the thief therefore immoral for causing you harm and depriving you of what you earned from your own effort for his own selfish gain? Is theft slavery and a form of parasitism for having someone else benefit from what you worked for and depriving you from the fruits of your labor?

There's no such thing as "morality". Life is a competition for resources and were all pretty much either "collaborators", "neutral" or "enemies".

I think you are trying to look at this in a box and say "well you can only "get mad" if it's immoral or evil". No, those concepts aren't even required. If someoone stabs me I feel pain and bleed. If something explodes and a random projectile impales me I will also feel pain and bleed. Intent isn't required for something to be bad for you, nor is intent required for you to be angry about the situation. People get angry when they face misfortune regardless.

 

[Retardfuel]

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/HolUp/comments/vrcg00/yum/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

 

[Deleted member 39864]

To me a baby is a baby doesn’t matter if it’s autistic or not

you ignored the main point

The whole purpose of antinatalism is that you think life in general is suffering and should be limited, so killing autistic babies, could be a way to achieve a similar goal as antinatalists have.

you could change it in general to babies though if you really wanna be stupid

 

[TheDarkEnigma]

No, I see it as me defending myself for the sake of my own self interest. Nobody who is against me is "evil", they are merely another competitor, another enemy.

Also, "justification" isn't needed on my part, in the same way that the person who harmed me didn't have any justification either. They just did what they wanted because they wanted to do it.

I don't care about "justification" either way because I'm a nihilist, I don't believe in morality. If someone makes themselves my enemy then I will have to be their enemy for the sake of my own survival and my own benefit.

But the thief shouldn't be subject to guilt or shame for acting over his own self-interest.

Yes, all actions are ultimately self-interested because everyone does something for a reason and that reason is to meet whatever goal they have.

But is there a difference between acquiring something fairly and other things unfairly?

Let's say for example the case of two friends, Alan and Bob. Let's say they both put in equal effort into opening a door and past that door there was a scooter. Now Alan found the scooter first, but Bob also wanted the scooter. Alan justifies himself claiming what he got because he got it first, so it is only fair for him to keep it. Bob argues that since Alan already has a bicycle and Bob previously gave Alan some rare vinyl records that Bob found himself.

Does Alan still have the right to claim the scooter? Should Bob fight for the scooter or just accept the situation?

Another scenario, someone hires you to do some work for you and he agrees to pay you $50 for your job. So you do the work and then you come back to the guy to get your money and he runs off without paying you. Should you take the loss or be upset that he deceived you and took advantage of your labor for his benefit?

There's no such thing as "morality". Life is a competition for resources and were all pretty much either "collaborators", "neutral" or "enemies".

So, should I be generous to those who help me or should I be against everyone else?

What if I harm someone not out of some advantage but also out of spite?

I think you are trying to look at this in a box and say "well you can only "get mad" if it's immoral or evil". No, those concepts aren't even required. If someoone stabs me I feel pain and bleed. If something explodes and a random projectile impales me I will also feel pain and bleed. Intent isn't required for something to be bad for you, nor is intent required for you to be angry about the situation. People get angry when they face misfortune regardless.

But at least you didn't died and you still alive. Then explain suicidal people whether they will fight for their lives in a life-or-death situation and let themselves perish. When is anger justified? What if I simply lose at a game or annoyed someone long enough but never messed with his money or his wife?

 

[Scio]

A common argument used against serial killers and mass shooters is that they kill "innocent people". The fact they kill "innocent people" makes them terrible, where as murder of someone who committed a wrong against you, while still evil, is seen as somewhat understandable, such as if someone slept with your spouse for example.

However, most of the time, they don't kill people who are "innocent".

View: https://youtu.be/8vq_k0yqq88


It's further explained in this thread by @BlkPillPres

[Hard To Swallow Edition] There Is No Such Thing As An "Innocent" In Society [NOT EVEN CHILDREN]

A lot of people, even incels, are against mass murders based on the false perception of "innocents", I'm here to argue there's no such thing Aren't we all aware that pedophilia and rape is rampant in Hollywood? Most people living in areas with drug king pins know who is running the area yet do...

incels.is

Yes, this even includes young children, such as the ones Adam Lanza killed at Sandy Hook.

However, when a woman kills life in her womb, she is killing innocent life, because how can something that hasn't been born yet commit evil and not be innocent? Therefore, she is the one killing innocent life, not serial killers or mass shooters, and thus since killing innocent life is seen as the most evil thing, she is more evil than serial killers and mass shooters.

One of my favorite movies. But the most important part is not in the clip, where he sais that he is jealous of Pitt for being a Chad and having a happy life with his Stacy. I think John Doe is an incel and his murders are copes.

 

[gimmedatrope999]

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/HolUp/comments/vrcg00/yum/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

I’m pro-choice, but I don’t think this is okay. She’s using abortion as a form of birth control. Imo women should be sterilized after having received one abortion (exception for cases of rape/incest) so that this doesn’t happen. I may be pro-choice, but I can admit that it’s a form of murder.

 

[BlkPillPres]

But is there a difference between acquiring something fairly and other things unfairly?

There's no such thing as "fairness". Someone always has the upper-hand, whether it's in training, genetics, etc. In most cases even the person who "trained harder" was only able to do that because they had superior genetics and/or financial resources.

Someone always has an advantage.

Let's say for example the case of two friends, Alan and Bob. Let's say they both put in equal effort into opening a door and past that door there was a scooter. Now Alan found the scooter first, but Bob also wanted the scooter. Alan justifies himself claiming what he got because he got it first, so it is only fair for him to keep it. Bob argues that since Alan already has a bicycle and Bob previously gave Alan some rare vinyl records that Bob found himself.

Does Alan still have the right to claim the scooter? Should Bob fight for the scooter or just accept the situation?

Nobody has a right to anything, things "just happen" or people take what they want by force.

Everything in life comes down to random chance, and in order to defy random chance and exert your will over reality, you must do so through effort and/or physical force.

Another scenario, someone hires you to do some work for you and he agrees to pay you $50 for your job. So you do the work and then you come back to the guy to get your money and he runs off without paying you. Should you take the loss or be upset that he deceived you and took advantage of your labor for his benefit?

That sounds like a legal issue that can easily be rectified in court. If it's the case of a criminal then IDK how I would advise someone on that.

So, should I be generous to those who help me or should I be against everyone else?

You can do whatever you want.

What if I harm someone not out of some advantage but also out of spite?

Don't care lol.

But at least you didn't died and you still alive. Then explain suicidal people whether they will fight for their lives in a life-or-death situation and let themselves perish. When is anger justified? What if I simply lose at a game or annoyed someone long enough but never messed with his money or his wife?

No such thing as "justification", it's another made up human concept. We all do what we do because we want to, and we want to because and it "feels good" and/or benefits us in some way.

Justification is the shit people come up with to rationalize doing it so that they don't feel "guilt". Someone who has accepted reality for what it is doesn't concern themselves with such things anyways.

Now I think I'll end this back and forth because I'll just be repeating myself over and over. The scenario doesn't matter, reality is reality.